1 / 10

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership. A Path Model for Evaluating Teacher and Student Effects MSP Evaluation Summit II Carl E. Hanssen MMP External Evaluator. Evaluation Goals. Help the MMP better serve its constituents and improve its effectiveness

delu
Download Presentation

Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Milwaukee Mathematics Partnership A Path Model for Evaluating Teacher and Student Effects MSP Evaluation Summit II Carl E. Hanssen MMP External Evaluator

  2. Evaluation Goals • Help the MMP better serve its constituents and improve its effectiveness • Serve the broader mathematics education community through documentation and dissemination of MMP activities

  3. Student Achievement Distal Outcomes Classroom Practice Teacher Content & Pedagogical Knowledge Proximal Outcomes Teacher Involvement Learning Team Effort School Buy-in MMP Activities New Courses Math Faculty Involvement District Buy-in UWM Buy-In MATC Buy-In MPA Ownership Evaluation Logic Model

  4. HLM Approach Schools Teachers/ Classrooms Nested In Student Achievement Nested In

  5. SEM Approach Education Teacher MKT Student Achievement Experience Classroom Practice Professional Development

  6. Sample • 114 grade 3-8 teachers from 11 different schools • Typical teacher • Bachelors Degree • 4-6 years of experience • 24 hours of mathematics PD in 05-06 • Slightly below norm MKT • Believed in MMP practices • Just under half of students wereproficient • Missing data for MKT, MMP Practices,and SA were imputed

  7. Results X2(4,n=114)=9.03, p=.06 RMSEA=.10; GFI=.97; AGFI=.87 Education .02 (.09) Teacher MKT -1.69 (1.28) .04* (.02) .01 (.06) Student Achievement Experience .49 (.88) Classroom Practice .00 (.00) .00 (.00) Professional Development -.02 (.03) * p < .05 Note. Standard errors reported in parentheses

  8. Model Specification Add path from MKT to Classroom Practice Eliminate path from MKT to SA No paths from Education and Experience to MKT Add SES Add Prior Year SA Measurement Better teacher demographic data New measure for education? Improve measures of classroom practice Timing of student achievement Room for improvement?

  9. Alternative Model Education (or time since degree?) Teacher MKT Student SES Experience (change to continuous) Student Achievement (which year?) Classroom Practice (need something better) Professional Development Prior Year Student Achievement

  10. Implications for Evaluation • Establish better measures of classroom practice • Establish better data links between teachers and student achievement • “Peel the onion” and use information to guide project activities

More Related